nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok, on one side, we have scientists, the other, a comedian...... How do you decide who to listen to? Hmmmm?

Also, he made that statement 10 years ago, things have gotten a lot worse since then, particularly in the area of losing animal species.

Animal species go extinct throughout the earth's history.

Tell me how

walshb wrote: »

Just another fad that people have latched onto for attention, likes, approval and a sense of belonging...

The earth is doing fine...the people? #georgecarlin..

Ok, on one side, we have scientists, the other, a comedian...... How do you decide who to listen to? Hmmmm?

Also, he made that statement 10 years ago, things have gotten a lot worse since then, particularly in the area of losing animal species.

Rockbeast2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Garlic View Post
There will be more real environmental issues as punitive taxation bites deeper. Why pay for rubbish collection when it can be dumped in a ditch or burned. When peoples backs are to the wall the last thing they care about is the environment.
I think some of these aspects of managing the environment are more easily managed. Most people can be persuaded to recyle and dispose of waste properly, litter less and so on. That's relatively easy to address compared to the real problems that Musician refers to above in terms of electricity generation, agriculture and transport, along with increasing demand for consumer goods and so on. These require substantial changes in how we live and in how we work and earn our crust, how we holiday and our life expectations etc. I don't think Irish people are ready to address these matters though. We just want to carry on as we've become accustomed to, wave a magic wand and be happy we've done enough to make our contribution.

*Just clean up after yourself, guys.

Take all the Phantom sh*tters from that after hours thread and tell them to poo in a field.

Then we don't need to use chemicals to clean up workplaces.

* and the phosphorous in poo is great for the land.

That's my part for Ireland today.

Someone else can save the world...

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

MrMusician - how do you expect living standards to stay the same without messing up the whole planet or are you happy to be on that trajectory?

The living standards will be nicely maintained for the rich snobs and the well off in this sh×thole don't you worry, and I'll have to work harder or take less to fund it. Didn't they get a pay rise in the dail lately did I hear correctly? If so it's nicely timed to offset the carbon taxes coming next month..

Tell me how

MrMusician18 wrote: »

All good ideas, but are tinkering at the edges really.

Carbon is a big problem, and the problem areas are electricity generation, agriculture and transport.

Renewable electricity generation is still more expensive than fossil thermal.
There are no genuine technical solutions that are near cost effective to decarbonise agriculture
And transport - nothing really happening in aviation or road haulage. Can see the electrification of the private fleet, but that just shifts the problem. Irish population is too dispersed for public transport to be efficient.

A big tax on carbon or carbon rationing would force change, but since we cannot magic equivalent low carbon technical solutions out of thin air these would inevitably make the country poorer.

Well, in the meantime we should do what we can instead of saying, there is no point because it won't fix everything.

Also, this is a point which Greta herself has made repeatedly, the large scale solutions do not yet exist to fix all the problems, that is why we need to fund the development of alternative solutions.

She was involved in a video released yesterday which suggests 3 central tenets of the fight to help the climate.

Protect. Restore. Fund.

In that video, the strongest claim to help things immediately, is to plant trees, I have seen this ridiculed in some locations but I think we should be doing it immediately and planting native trees or at least a mix instead of one type of spruce with no variation.

walshb

Just another fad that people have latched onto for attention, likes, approval and a sense of belonging...

The earth is doing fine...the people? #georgecarlin..

BarryD2

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

There will be more real environmental issues as punitive taxation bites deeper. Why pay for rubbish collection when it can be dumped in a ditch or burned. When peoples backs are to the wall the last thing they care about is the environment.

I think some of these aspects of managing the environment are more easily managed. Most people can be persuaded to recyle and dispose of waste properly, litter less and so on. That's relatively easy to address compared to the real problems that Musician refers to above in terms of electricity generation, agriculture and transport, along with increasing demand for consumer goods and so on. These require substantial changes in how we live and in how we work and earn our crust, how we holiday and our life expectations etc. I don't think Irish people are ready to address these matters though. We just want to carry on as we've become accustomed to, wave a magic wand (placard) and be happy we've done enough to make our contribution.

Rockbeast2

I expect Greta and Sinead O'Connor to sing a duet on a certain Irish show this side of Christmas.

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We are destroying everything. Look at loss of natural habitat around the world and the pollution in rivers and oceans, including our own back yard.

There will be more real environmental issues as punitive taxation bites deeper. Why pay for rubbish collection when it can be dumped in a ditch or burned. When peoples backs are to the wall the last thing they care about is the environment.

Rockbeast2

QE?

20 BILLION a week in EU now, is it?

Keep an eye on a certain bank. 77 TRILLION in the red, is it? That's why it is imperative that the Brits can't get divorced.

Not too long ago, I was the most slightly-to-the-left-of - center person you could meet.

Time changes everyone :-(

This new "EU" is an attempt at a 4th Reich IMO.

*SPOILER ALERT*

It will fail. Again.

BarryD2

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Less people and population control means slowing down the economy which i am all for but it would probably lead to having less stuff so you wouldnt be happy with that either would you?

Personally, I'd be more in favour of quality rather than quantity. But so many now, including many of the young climate protesters, want a bit of everything going and not next week but now.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I wonder is there any derogation on emissions targets for countries who accept large numbers of refugees. It would seem unfair to penalise an altruistic country.

The whole issue is full of paradoxes isn't it. It'd be wonderful if everything was black & white like young Greta would have it. But real life & society is much messier. We can all do & consume less personally but the fecker down the road who doesn't give a s**t can carry on normally and just laugh.

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

Environment and climate are different things.

I believe we must treat our environment better.

I don't believe we can change the climate.

Indeed, climate has been changing since time dot. I suppose the issue is the pace of change and whether earth and society can adapt as quickly as before. Part of the reason we might see more immigration from other parts of the world is when their lands get less habitable. But humans have always done this too over longer periods of time.

SafeSurfer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Less people and population control means slowing down the economy which i am all for but it would probably lead to having less stuff so you wouldnt be happy with that either would you?

When growing up in quite a big family, having less people around meant more for those left.

So why would World resources divided among free people mean less for everyone.

MrMusician18

Tell me how wrote: »

I gave you one example around car use last night that helps the situation and doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in quality of life.

Or how about, we ban disposable coffee cups, that'll help the environment and people can use reusable ones.

Or how about if manufacturers were obliged to make devices which could be repaired. Less would be unnecessarily discarded meaning less new ones having to be produced.

All good ideas, but are tinkering at the edges really.

Carbon is a big problem, and the problem areas are electricity generation, agriculture and transport.

Renewable electricity generation is still more expensive than fossil thermal.
There are no genuine technical solutions that are near cost effective to decarbonise agriculture
And transport - nothing really happening in aviation or road haulage. Can see the electrification of the private fleet, but that just shifts the problem. Irish population is too dispersed for public transport to be efficient.

A big tax on carbon or carbon rationing would force change, but since we cannot magic equivalent low carbon technical solutions out of thin air these would inevitably make the country poorer.

Wanderer78

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

Environment and climate are different things.

I believe we must treat our environment better.

I don't believe we can change the climate.

Carbon Tax is a scam to pay for the influx of people into the Northern Hemisphere in order to keep the growth of share prices going.

largely due to polices that inflate asset prices such as qe

Rockbeast2

Environment and climate are different things.

I believe we must treat our environment better.

I don't believe we can change the climate.

Carbon Tax is a scam to pay for the influx of people into the Northern Hemisphere in order to keep the growth of share prices going.

SafeSurfer

Wibbs wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Loss of habitat for animals but increase in habitat for humans. Does the new green deal address population control?
I didn’t see any placards at the marches yesterday calling for fewer people please.

Indeed, the current very pervasive mantra in the west from business and politics is we must have more people and we don't have enough we must then import people from elsewhere. Instead of seeing a population levelling out or even declining slightly as a good thing, it is seen as some sort of emergency. Even here in Ireland where we have one of the highest birth rates in Europe we're getting fed this mantra from the great and the good(tm).

I wonder is there any derogation on emissions targets for countries who accept large numbers of refugees. It would seem unfair to penalise an altruistic country.

Thelonious Monk

Less people and population control means slowing down the economy which i am all for but it would probably lead to having less stuff so you wouldnt be happy with that either would you?

BarryD2

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We are destroying everything. Look at loss of natural habitat around the world and the pollution in rivers and oceans, including our own back yard.

I'm not sure that's entirely true in the case of Ireland anyway. Notwithstanding fly tipping of rubbish, rural Ireland is cleaner now I think than say 20-30 years ago. Farms have tidied up a lot, you don't see nearly as much random plastic like silage wrap stuck in the ditches etc. This is part due to general education but also efforts like tidy towns, green miles, farm subsidies connected to management, recycling of silage wrap etc. I think waterways too are on the whole cleaner, more care taken with slurry spreading and run off. We've still some towns pumping sewage into the sea, but many of these now have treatment plants and so on. Still too many sprays and artificial fertiliser applied. So things have improved in areas like this. We drive more, heat our houses to higher temperatures and so on.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

And yes some kind of subsidies should be given to people like you to encourage this kind of thing.

LOL, won't be holding my breath!

Wibbs

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Loss of habitat for animals but increase in habitat for humans. Does the new green deal address population control?
I didn’t see any placards at the marches yesterday calling for fewer people please.

Indeed, the current very pervasive mantra in the west from business and politics is we must have more people and we don't have enough we must then import people from elsewhere. Instead of seeing a population levelling out or even declining slightly as a good thing, it is seen as some sort of emergency. Even here in Ireland where we have one of the highest birth rates in Europe we're getting fed this mantra from the great and the good(tm).

Tell me how

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What are the solutions? because I'd like to hear them.
Every solution I've seen involved reducing living standards, be that either through taxation and/or the introduction of new more expensive technologies. The alternative is to shrink the human population, which brings it's own problems.

There is no solution that allows for carbon reduction whilst at the same time elevating or even maintaining living standards.

I gave you one example around car use last night that helps the situation and doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in quality of life.

Or how about, we ban disposable coffee cups, that'll help the environment and people can use reusable ones.

Or how about if manufacturers were obliged to make devices which could be repaired. Less would be unnecessarily discarded meaning less new ones having to be produced.

SafeSurfer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We are destroying everything. Look at loss of natural habitat around the world and the pollution in rivers and oceans, including our own back yard.

Loss of habitat for animals but increase in habitat for humans. Does the new green deal address population control?
I didn’t see any placards at the marches yesterday calling for fewer people please.

Wanderer78

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Let's be honest here. There was a 4% swing to the greens bring their national vote to 5.5%. Their vote was largely concentrated in upper middle class districts so this facilitated them picking up the bottom seats generally.

Since the majority of Dail constituencies are much more diverse 3 and 4 seaters, they will need to concentrate their urban support to successfully pick up 2-3 seats. The greens might make up a small part of a coalition, and if they do, they'll again be used as the lightening rod for unpopular policies.

4% swing, green wave me bollix

keep a close eye on how the other parties react to this movement, theyre already reacting!

Thelonious Monk

BarryD2 wrote: »

Rural folk manage carbon sinks, personally I've about half the land behind our house planted in trees, absorbing urban dwellers carbon. But will I get any credit for that? Like hell, we'll just pay more in carbon taxes on fuel that we need to get around with due to the absence of any public transport and shrinking services.

What we'll see as this rolls forward is an increasing divide between urban & rural dwellers. The state is supposed to be fair & equitable to all, let's hope so.

Thats great Barry fair play. And yes some kind of subsidies should be given to people like you to encourage this kind of thing.

Thelonious Monk

We are destroying everything. Look at loss of natural habitat around the world and the pollution in rivers and oceans, including our own back yard.

MrMusician18

Micky 32 wrote: »

But didn't a load of green councillors get voted in though?

Let's be honest here. There was a 4% swing to the greens bring their national vote to 5.5%. Their vote was largely concentrated in upper middle class districts so this facilitated them picking up the bottom seats generally.

Since the majority of Dail constituencies are much more diverse 3 and 4 seaters, they will need to concentrate their urban support to successfully pick up 2-3 seats. The greens might make up a small part of a coalition, and if they do, they'll again be used as the lightening rod for unpopular policies.

4% swing, green wave me bollix

SafeSurfer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

MrMusician - how do you expect living standards to stay the same without messing up the whole planet or are you happy to be on that trajectory?

Malthus thought the same about population growth. That everyone would eventually starve. Living standards have been increasing for billions of people for decades.

We aren’t “destroying everything” as you claimed earlier. We are using resources to improve our lot. Yes we can do that more efficiently and in a way that better protects our environment.

BarryD2

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Barry, city people use less energy and resources than rural folk, think about it

Rural folk manage carbon sinks, personally I've about half the land behind our house planted in trees, absorbing urban dwellers carbon. But will I get any credit for that? Like hell, we'll just pay more in carbon taxes on fuel that we need to get around with due to the absence of any public transport and shrinking services.

What we'll see as this rolls forward is an increasing divide between urban & rural dwellers. The state is supposed to be fair & equitable to all, let's hope so.

MrMusician18

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

MrMusician - how do you expect living standards to stay the same without messing up the whole planet or are you happy to be on that trajectory?

I don't. What I do expect is some honesty from those that want change. The change they want is fewer foreign holidays and less consumption in general. For others, not themselves.

The mad thing though is that these people can voluntarily consume less if they actually believed in their message. Taxes aren't required to stop you going skiing at Easter, or that cheeky city break to Amsterdam. Is this really about creating a barrier to stopping the less well off enjoying the things that the upper middle class and beyond have long enjoyed?

I'm all for action on this, but there is no way this can be done without it being regressive, at least not with our current/near horizon technology.

Thelonious Monk

Barry, city people use less energy and resources than rural folk, think about it

BarryD2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive always places the greens at the higher end of my ballot paper, because i believe in what they believe in, but i would disagree with some of their polices, strongly sometimes

That's about it, I canvassed for them once but would have disagreed when they went into government. Since then, it seems to me they've aligned themselves even closer to the urban vote. I think they view rural Ireland as an inconvenience to live in and/or a nice place to holiday in, a place to populate with industrial wind machines, battery and solar farms to power the city lifestyle.